23 ms·

The number of banks willing to do business with the crypto industry is shrinking

167 points by thesecretceo 4y ago

_5uxp 4y ago
Comments here are hilarious, while Visa is testing Ethereum network and Stripe, Paypal etc took a decade to use it.
- jostiniane 4y ago
  Wait until they realize that Ripple is running a good portion of financial institutions.. Seems like people prefer keeping their heads in the sand, nobody is here to convince anyone of anything though because for some reason most of the critics happen to be the most ingorant of the matter
notch656c 4y ago
Crypto is fleeing banks. Bank investors should be worried.
- AviationAtom 4y ago
  I vouched. This is a very valid concern, that was even recently mentioned in a paper from the Fed. Large crypto "banks", with large holdings in fiat banks, can cause huge outflows from those banks, upsetting their reserves balance. Essentially a crypto bank run can cause a fiat bank run. This couldn't be more true when you see examples like where FTX bought a small community bank. People pretending crypto only effects those in the crypto space are burying their heads in the sand. Crypto is here to stay in some form or fashion.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    The number of fiat banks to crypto banks is in the realm of 10,000 to 1. So yes a crypto bank could maybe cause a single fiat bank to fail but it would be isolated. And likely a very small bank. The entire crypto industry could collapse tomorrow and there would be likely no systemic risk to the global financial system.
    - AviationAtom 4y ago
      Indeed, not currently. The problem is where crypto will go after the next winter. Maybe FTX will have scared off the next batch of newcomers, but then again 2017 and people still were lured back again.
      - threeseed 4y ago
        Difference now is that VCs have lost interest in the crypto space. LPs are freaking out over what happened with FTX and wanting to limit their exposure and investors in general are increasingly dubious that crypto is capable of generating sustainable, highly profitable businesses.
        AviationAtom 4y ago
        Indeed, but I have no doubt they will be back yet again, when there's money to be made again. It's been the same with each tech economic bust, but the VCs come back and offer money again. Time heals wounds.
  - astrange 4y ago
    A bank run isn't a systemic risk to the banking system because we have the FDIC.
    - conanbatt 4y ago
      How does FDIC behave in a high-inflation environment?
      - threeseed 4y ago
        FDIC was introduced in 1933. And the inflation rate today is nothing compared to previous years [1]. So my guess is just fine. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/2497/historical-inflation-rate-by-year https://www.macrotrends.net/2497/historical-inflation-rate-b...
      - AviationAtom 4y ago
        The government is good for all debts, until it isn't. But at such a point as it isn't then I think FDIC insurance becomes the least of our concerns.
      - sumeno 4y ago
        Much better than crypto has
        conanbatt 4y ago
        Laughs in Argentinian peso
    - AviationAtom 4y ago
      It doesn't change the fact said bank would have gone under, and people would only be reimbursed up to $250k. It is in everyone's interest for banks to remain healthy.
    - hem777 4y ago
      You may not remember 2008, but banks are absolutely, massively, a systematic risk to everyone, everywhere.
jsemrau 4y ago
Anecdotal evidence: Friends of mine tried to open up a corporate bank account in Singapore for their crypto-business. Doesn't go too well.
- zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
  Hodlnaut is in Singapore. Makes sense banks there would want to avoid crypto companies after this huge failure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodlnaut https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodlnaut
  - jsemrau 4y ago
    3AC as well.
- yreg 4y ago
  I don't know about Singapore specifically, but it has always been notoriously difficult for crypto businesses to open bank accounts.
- strangattractor 4y ago
  Probably all those regulations put in place to keep people from disappearing with your money. There are many other friendly countries for these types of businesses like the Bahamas for example.
- epolanski 4y ago
  Banks don't work with crypto. It's known.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  Anecdotal evidence: I tried to open up a personal bank account in Singapore for myself. Doesn't go too well. And that was with a bank that I have a private banking relationship in 6 countries already...
greenyoda 4y ago
Archive with full text of article: https://archive.ph/3FWSM https://archive.ph/3FWSM
tnel77 4y ago
[flagged]
- vachina 4y ago
  I’m not going to pretend Bitcoin is the bane of human existence, I have a hunch that a majority of the people cheering Bitcoin’s (alleged) rise either is a fraudster or a grifter.
  - tnel77 4y ago
    I see what you did there. Agree to disagree, I suppose.
- alphanullmeric 4y ago
  Certain people take issue with financial privacy, and not being able to regulate other people’s wallets.
  - timmytokyo 4y ago
    I don't tend to associate privacy with an asset whose transactions are recorded in a public ledger for all to see.
    - alphanullmeric 4y ago
      Do you support forcing KYC laws onto exchanges? Or the cryptocurrency transaction tracking laws in the EU? I’m looking for a yes or no answer.
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        Yes. Why should cryptocurrencies allow fraudulent money transfers to North Korea and not banks that can do them more cheaply? Hint: there is no good reason. Regulation will catch up.
        4y ago
givemeethekeys 4y ago
If I were a bank, I'd stay far away from any non-bitcoin cryptos that I'm not an issuer of. Why would I want to own a coin that someone else is able to freely devalue, in addition to conventional currencies? On the other hand, if I were a bank, bitcoin presents a compelling argument. The supply is finite. Disclaimer: I don't own any crypto or bitcoin.
- dijit 4y ago
  >if I were a bank, bitcoin presents a compelling argument. The supply is finite. Do you think that the most important thing about the value of something is the finite supply of it? Fiat currency is theoretically infinite since we abolished the gold standard, but seems to be compelling. Why would bitcoin be more compelling than gold (a finite store of wealth) or fiat currency (a fluctuating/volatile/infinite store of wealth)
  - gfodor 4y ago
    You can own both gold and Bitcoin. At a minimum unless you think those who think bitcoin is ultimately worthless are right, it’s a way to diversify a gold-like asset class along the axis they are similar.
    - epolanski 4y ago
      Let's compare a highly valuable and needed metal with 6000+ years of history as a solid investment, with...cryptocurrencies and their proven record of having no real life utility but lots of speculation. Makes sense.
      - defrost 4y ago
        > Let's compare a highly valuable and needed metal with 6000+ years of history as a solid investment Hi, I've worked in the global mineral exploration industry for decades, both as a mine worker, an exploration geophysicist, and as a compiler of a global DB that now backends the S&P mineral intelligence division. Let's clear up some things about gold. 1) It's valuable because it's valued .. That's pretty much it, it's kind of rare, its shiny, it "stands alone" as a noble metal that doesn't easily react. 2) Much needed - it's used in jewellry, it's essential in high end long life zero maintaince space electronics ... a great deal of other uses (Gold Speaker Cables!!) are just pure performative BD (ie. it's not "essential") - other metals are in the same ballpark for conductivity, etc. 3) The greatest single application for gold, once mined at great expense, is to be formed into ingots and sit about as bullion as "proof" of work (digging a super pit and spending > billion to recover it per annum) and proof of wealth. It's more or less solid crypto that persists after the power goes out, can be worn as shiny jewellery, and has some neat niche applications that it is essential for. I'm not a huge cyrpto fan, although I did hang on the cypher punk boards where the bitcoin paper was first announced (as I have a math background) - I'm no fan of the vast amount of energy wasted (IMHO) on both gold extraction and bitcoin mining.
wruza 4y ago
A worrisome title. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230109005186/en/ https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230109005186/en/ The Company expects minimal financial impact from the exit of this vertical. MCB currently has four active institutional crypto-asset related clients that in the aggregate currently account for approximately 1.5% of total revenues and 6% of total deposits. MCB’s relationships with these clients are limited to providing debit card, payment and account services. The Company has no loans outstanding to any of these clients, does not hold crypto-assets on its balance sheet and does not market or sell crypto-assets to its customers. Mark R. DeFazio, President and CEO of MCB. “Crypto-related clients, assets and deposits have never represented a material portion of the Company’s business and have never exposed the Company to material financial risks. Seems like this experiment never brought anything but account maintenance fees and they simply revised regulatory risks after FTX noise. A “deep liquidity” which was left unused for years. But “Banks Are Fleeing” makes a better headline indeed.
- rurp 4y ago
  A few years ago crypto often had large jumps from deals like these, not so much because of the immediate affect but more because it implied much larger growth was on the horizon. That seemed reasonable at the time, and the reverse seems reasonable now. If large financial institutions don't want to touch crypto, that severly limits the foreseeable upside for the industry.
  - aaronwalker 4y ago
    Interest in crypto comes in cycles, and with each new cycle there are more incumbents that want to get involved. This bear market may have been particularly worrying for the industry, but I'm confident that in 5-10 years from now large financial institutions will again want to incorporate crypto. The networks behind these currencies are too resilient and the upside is too high to avoid.
    - elevaet 4y ago
      Why 5-10 years? Hype cycle, or do you think there will be changes in the tech that could make it useful to these institutions at that point?
galaxyLogic 4y ago
Cryptonomics?
monero-xmr 4y ago
3 years ago ETH was $100, today it's $1300, maybe we should all just wait and see before writing the obituary
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  Calling this an obituary is rather hyperbolic. It is, though, yet another indication that crypto is losing momentum among mainstream consumers. Perhaps that's simply collateral damage from a downturn that's affecting all segments of the economy. But, then again, perhaps not. It strikes me as a distinct, qualitatively important development that's worth observing carefully rather than dismissing out of hand.
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    I mean, META stock has been a worse investment year over year than bitcoin. I know everything is relative, but the "momentum losing" I think is fueled by people who vehemently dislike this technology more than what the market is determining
    - mumblemumble 4y ago
      You can't draw a distinction between people who dislike an asset and "the market" like that. The market includes everyone, not just a select group of people who hold a specific set of opinions. Also, this focus on the USD exchange rates of specific cryptocurrencies is akin to moving the goalpost right out of the stadium and into, like, a tennis court or something. The shift this article is talking about is not about prices, it's about mainstream institutional support for the asset class. That's not driven by exchange rates, per se, because they're not speculating on it, they're simply enabling their clients to do so. It's more driven by things like whether they believe there's a stable consumer market that can be relied upon to cover their cost of operating in the space and provide some profit as well.
- xupybd 4y ago
  And that is why I don't go near any crypto. Don't get me wrong I love the idea but I don't like volatility. I can't wait until a stable DeFi is established. for international transactions this will be a dream. If it's up over 10 fold in 3 years then I don't see why it couldn't drop 3 fold in the next 3. I like simple investments where the value is obvious and a simpleton like me can guess if the price matches the underlying value.
matt3210 4y ago
need quotes around "investors"
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
gerdesj 4y ago
I minted nearly 1 BTC rather a lot of years ago and it vanished with a Pentium II to III upgrade (or similar). Oh well! I probably ran up £5 of 'leccy back then minting it. I probably spent more on Folding@Home and the like. For me the ledgers/blockchains and provability things are important but trying to fennangle a "value" out of thin air is a step too far. Even if that step involves a Norway MW Year. Eventually something useful might come out of all of this but I don't think it will be a currency you can spend. In the meantime, the world burns or at least gets a bit more toasty.
- Canada 4y ago
  > I minted nearly 1 BTC rather a lot of years ago and it vanished with a Pentium II to III upgrade (or similar). How did you do that?
  - gerdesj 4y ago
    I idly played with BTC one evening and I let it mine for about a week or so on a fairly poky PC and got bored of it eventually. I was more interested in Folding@Home. As it turns out I was both right and wrong. That BTC was going to be worth up to $64,000 at one point in time. However, protein folding might save lives. I ditched that PC and didn't copy over the wallet because I'd forgotten about it - it wasn't that important. I am very aware now that it would probably be a good idea to back up things like that 8)
    - 93po 4y ago
      I always console people by telling them there's no way you'd have held on to that BTC all the way to $64k. You'd probably sell it for a few hundred
      - DSingularity 4y ago
        And if not — definitely when it hit a thousand.
    - fyloraspit 4y ago
rufusroflpunch 4y ago
I don’t think this one example they provided is indicative. Didn’t the BIS just give their okay for banks to hold 2% of reserves in Bitcoin? Also, didn’t FASB just change their accounting rules to make businesses holding crypto easier on the balance sheet? Presumably demand is going in the opposite direction that this blurb would indicate.
- markhuggins 4y ago
  A quick read seems to me to state that no, the Basel crowd did not give banks an OK to hold 2% in Bitcoin. On the contrary they've added a new rule that states it needs to be <1% (and even then should be risk weighted at 1250%). BIS (https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d545.pdf https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d545.pdf) This states that banks should in the normal course of business hold less than 1% and must report anything higher, 2% is when an additional 'penalty' applies.
- joedavison 4y ago
  The story about BIS authorizing banks to hold 2% of reserves in Bitcoin was dramatically misreported. This was actually placing a limit on their holdings, to 2%, which is down from no limit previously.
daedalus2027 4y ago
My fear is that eventually people will star loosing holding over cryptos and banks will star to buy them very cheap, so they will control the supply and not people. once again banks having the full grip.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Yea, that’s the idea. Someone is buying when there’s blood in the streets and it’s not usually the idiots.
stephc_int13 4y ago
I have the feeling that this crypto winter is different than the previous ones. I think that we're finally reaching a critical mass of people understanding the nature of the proposition.
- DonHopkins 4y ago
  It's just like the Scientology Winter. Nobody could stop Scientology until South Park did a series of episodes about them. And South Park recently did a number on NFTs and crypto currencies a year ago: Crypto Curious - SOUTH PARK: POST COVID: THE RETURN OF COVID https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8f-BQFo7lw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8f-BQFo7lw >Vic Chaos presents a proposal on the potential of selling NFTs to Denny's Applebee's Max customers.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Did that actually stop Scientology? Last I checked, they still have that crazy pinky-swear-it's-not-a-gulag compound, the Sea Org is still around, recruiting via "free stress tests" is still a thing...
- Sargos 4y ago
  > I think that we're finally reaching a critical mass of people understanding the nature of the proposition. Most people have only heard of Bitcoin and think crypto is about sending digital gold coins to people. That hasn't been relevant in years and the crypto industry moved on from Bitcoin half a decade ago and pretty much all of the development and activity happens on Ethereum. Most people have never heard of Ethereum and only a small portion of those that have understand what it is. I don't think we're anywhere near a peak
  - yao420 4y ago
    > Most people have never heard of Ethereum Paris Hilton and jimmy fallon were shilling bored apes on late night tv. Kim kardashian and Floyd Maywether promoted crypto scams. Tom Brady was a big FTX promoter and investor. There were like 4 formula one teams named after shitcoins. Those names are some of the most famous in the world across a number of demographics. Mass media already pushed the crypto scams on the world. There is no one left to push the ponzi onto.
Octokiddie 4y ago
> The problem, in a nutshell, is that for Bitcoin and other digital assets to have any chance of becoming mainstream, banks—with their access to deep sources of liquidity and experience in facilitating payments—will have to be on board. For the time being, they’re running in the opposite direction. What does Bitcoin "becoming mainstream" look like specifically? The article doesn't offer anything - not even a link. Let's say it's 1974 and you're writing an article about the desktop computer "becoming mainstream". What does that look like exactly to you? I'm guessing it doesn't look anything like the last 30 years. Not even close. So how can the author be so confident in asserting that banks must be "on board" for this mainstreaming to happen? The desktop computer was an attack from below, in the Christenson Innovator's Dilemma sense. It looked and acted exactly like a toy for the first decade of its existence. Most incumbents who saw through that surface illusion were powerless to do anything about it. The one that did (IBM) tried, briefly succeeded, then lost the entire thing. Banks with their highly touted "experience in facilitating payments" are the very thing Bitcoin has in the crosshairs. Banks losing interest now that the Bitcoin FOMO is gone? Good riddance to them and their AML/KYC bootlicking.
- Animats 4y ago
  > Let's say it's 1974 and you're writing an article about the desktop computer "becoming mainstream". What does that look like exactly to you? I'm guessing it doesn't look anything like the last 30 years. Not even close. Sure it does. Read Alan Kay's "Personal Dynamic Media". His vision of the ultimate personal computer was what today we'd consider a very bulky laptop.
  - britneybitch 4y ago
    Alan Kay was one of the few people in 1974 qualified to make predictions about computers. I'd compare that to Andreas Antonopoulos making predictions about bitcoin in 2011. I wouldn't trust your average journalist's predictions in either situation.
  - meowkit 4y ago
    Link for the curious. http://augmentingcognition.com/assets/Kay1977.pdf http://augmentingcognition.com/assets/Kay1977.pdf It's a neat read, from 1977 to be pedantic. It does miss networking - the DynaBook misses the forest for the trees in that it is a personal computer that doesn't account for the advent of the internet and how PCs/smartphones are a communication tool right after being a fancy calculator at their core. In a sense that's an apt description for how a lot of people view crypto - they see it as purely a currency network, but don't realize its much more than that.
Sparkyte 4y ago
There is no reason to be invested in crypto. It is no more valuable than a trading card and the volatile nature of trading cards are equal part. Noone also needs to invest in something that has an unsure future. While people would argue that it is like investing in stocks that crypto is the new Apple stocks of 80s. It simply isn't that stocks come with volatility but you own a share of the company as in you own that percentage.
- surfingdino 4y ago
  Yet banks do not close accounts of people selling, buying, designing, or printing trading cards, do they?
  - jostiniane 4y ago
    > it's nothing to worry about > if we will ever catch you using that you will be punished
  - Sparkyte 4y ago
    Actually they can! If a large amount of money transfers because of selling/buying anything it can cause freeze on an account. But the individual value of a card is not likely to cause the trigger. Just like... ... crypto. But cash you can pretty much hide it even if you have finger quotes to finger quotes.
chamwislothe2nd 4y ago
I'd like to see a chart of negative HN posts vs bitcoin price. I have a feeling you could make a lot of money.
windex 4y ago
So many HODLers in this thread. For the normal person on the street, Bitcoin or Crypto never mattered. The endlessly breathless PR was irritating. Whatever happens, this wont be missed.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  I disagree. Crypto was the sort of thing you might hear about from a cabbie or at the barber shop. It was definitely something for the normal person on the street. In fact, that was used as a common sell signal with people quoting the "When your shoeshine boy gives you stock tips" stuff.
  - ozim 4y ago
    I just wanted to add perspective that for these cabbies and normal people it was gambling. It was not “get free from the government” it was not about convenience of digital payments or whatever crypto promise was there. For normal people it was get rich quick scheme and that is why advertising was so annoying. I agree with parent comment - in the end it never really mattered for normal people.
    - joyfylbanana 4y ago
      Though for many normal people it was also about buying drugs online which could be seen as "get free from the government" kind of thing
      - trenchgun 4y ago
        There are orders of magnitude more crypto gamblers than people buying drugs online.
      - pif 4y ago
        If you buy drugs for which you need to hide from your democratic government, then you are not normal people: you are a criminal. Good riddance!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwawayxy1 4y ago
India's 6 year old UPI does 7B transcations per month. Its used by all classes. Crypto is pathetic in comparison
- nlitened 4y ago
  How many transactions per months does UPI support for people who are banned from the system or whose assets are frozen?
  - throwawayxy1 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - nlitened 4y ago
      In 2022, 140 million people in Russia became criminals without trial, and got cut off from Visa, Mastercard and SWIFT within days. I’d suggest normal people to worry about those things at least a little bit if they have families who depend on them, you don’t want to have all their savings locked up at once.
      - tallanvor 4y ago
        And if a substantial amount of business was conducted using bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies, I have no doubt the rest of the world would have figured out a way to cut Russians off from them as well. That's one of the prices you pay when your government decides to invade one of their neighbors and tries to commit genocide.
        nlitened 4y ago
        I agree.
1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
For those who do not use archive.ph, here is the crux of the article: https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2023/bulletin-2023-1.html https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2023/bull... Banks are being warned against crypto. The article also claims bitcoin cannot survive without banks. Unfortunately, archive.ph requires the use of a "preferred browser" and the need to send data to Google. First, to get past the CAPTCHA, one has to access www.google.com, so Google now has data that the user is visiting archive.ph. https://www.google.com/recaptcha/api.js?onload=onloadCallback&render=explicit https://www.google.com/recaptcha/api.js?onload=onloadCallbac... https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/ping?sitemap=https://archive.ph/sitemap.xml https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/ping?sitemap=https:/... Once past the CAPTCHA, more fun. https://a.publir.com/platform/1100.js https://a.publir.com/platform/1100.js Publir looks like adtech. For example, https://a.publir.com/sellers.json https://a.publir.com/sellers.json https://a.publir.com/ads-txt/505/ads.txt https://a.publir.com/ads-txt/505/ads.txt The next one looks like some data collection by archive.ph https://[YOUR_IP_ADDRESS].[YOUR_COUNTRY].inc1.358424231.pixel.archive.ph/x.gif https://[YOUR_IP_ADDRESS].[YOUR_COUNTRY].inc1.358424231.pixe... Archive.ph itself is blocked in some countries. Maybe it wants to know where users are coming from. Archive.ph does not work with Clouflare DNS because CF refused to send archive.ph a portion of the user's IP address in a DNS packet, i.e., EDNS0 Client Subnet. Instead archive.ph will now use "x.gif" to cause a DNS request that reveals the full IP address of the user. Next, add in some tracking. https://top-fwz1.mail.ru/js/code.js https://top-fwz1.mail.ru/js/code.js Last but not least, everyone wants to let Google know what they are reading at archive.ph. Here, Barrons. https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=www.barrons.com https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=www.barrons.com https://t1.gstatic.com/faviconV2?client=NULL&type=FAVICON&fallback_opts=TYPE,SIZE,URL&url=http://www.barrons.com&size=16 https://t1.gstatic.com/faviconV2?client=NULL&type=FAVICON&fa...
jbverschoor 4y ago
Reducing in converted value actual crypto? I think almost everybody who kept reduced their exposure bc the price dropped
Jaydoon564 4y ago
[dead]
birracerveza 4y ago
Hilarious thread. Whichever way it's going to go, it will be fun to come to back to read it in 5 to 10 years.
surfingdino 4y ago
What is problematic with the banks' approach to crypto is that by closing accounts of companies or persons having something to do with crypto they are making it impossible to pay taxes. This is putting people and businesses in serious jeopardy of being prosecuted on the grounds of tax avoidance. I would love to know if such behaviour falls under anti-trust laws or may even be unconstitutional. Refusal of provision of services that may result in prosecution looks illegal to me, but I'd like to hear a lawyer's opinion.
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  That isn't the bank's problem, nor is it new. In the US, you are supposed to pay taxes on any profit, even if you don't get actual cash on it. Prizes from The Price is Right? You gotta have the cash for taxes. If illegal gains aren't exempt, I don't see a reason to exempt crypto. If you can't afford the tax, don't buy. (FWIW, they don't give you the price is right prizes unless you have cash upfront. Not getting the prize is you being poor or being tricked. I view crypto similarly.)
joemazerino 4y ago
Bitcoin doesn't need banks. That's the whole point.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Bitcoin doesn't, bitcoin investors do. And until you can pay your Snickers at a grocery store with bitcoin, that won't change.
  - jostiniane 4y ago
    There's a huge fight to kill crypto adoption and this article is an example.. You won't be able to buy snickers everywhere in BTC, but we are slowly getting there.. The number of things I can buy with crypto is increasing significantly (now I pay for VPN, web hosting, domain nane, consulting, ... in crypto). In addition, probably firsties are not aware, but P2P networks without KYC are exploding everywhere. I can get cash for crypto in under one hour where I am. You can today go to a number of touristy countries and live of exchanging BTC for cash securely and with 0 identification. If this is not big enough then I don't know whay would be.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Humanity isn’t ready because we can’t build perfect code yet. Once crypto isn’t incentivizing nation state actors from working on $50M bug bounties, maybe we will be ready…
- oblio 4y ago
  > Humanity isn’t ready because we can’t build perfect code yet. Let me rephrase that: [Nobody] is ready because we can't build perfect [anything], [ever].
b3nji 4y ago
But what about Bitcoin?

167 points by thesecretceo 4y ago

_5uxp 4y ago

Comments here are hilarious, while Visa is testing Ethereum network and Stripe, Paypal etc took a decade to use it.

jostiniane 4y ago
Wait until they realize that Ripple is running a good portion of financial institutions.. Seems like people prefer keeping their heads in the sand, nobody is here to convince anyone of anything though because for some reason most of the critics happen to be the most ingorant of the matter

notch656c 4y ago

Crypto is fleeing banks. Bank investors should be worried.

AviationAtom 4y ago
I vouched. This is a very valid concern, that was even recently mentioned in a paper from the Fed. Large crypto "banks", with large holdings in fiat banks, can cause huge outflows from those banks, upsetting their reserves balance. Essentially a crypto bank run can cause a fiat bank run. This couldn't be more true when you see examples like where FTX bought a small community bank. People pretending crypto only effects those in the crypto space are burying their heads in the sand. Crypto is here to stay in some form or fashion.
- threeseed 4y ago
  The number of fiat banks to crypto banks is in the realm of 10,000 to 1. So yes a crypto bank could maybe cause a single fiat bank to fail but it would be isolated. And likely a very small bank. The entire crypto industry could collapse tomorrow and there would be likely no systemic risk to the global financial system.
  - AviationAtom 4y ago
    Indeed, not currently. The problem is where crypto will go after the next winter. Maybe FTX will have scared off the next batch of newcomers, but then again 2017 and people still were lured back again.
    - threeseed 4y ago
      Difference now is that VCs have lost interest in the crypto space. LPs are freaking out over what happened with FTX and wanting to limit their exposure and investors in general are increasingly dubious that crypto is capable of generating sustainable, highly profitable businesses.
      - AviationAtom 4y ago
        Indeed, but I have no doubt they will be back yet again, when there's money to be made again. It's been the same with each tech economic bust, but the VCs come back and offer money again. Time heals wounds.
- astrange 4y ago
  A bank run isn't a systemic risk to the banking system because we have the FDIC.
  - conanbatt 4y ago
    How does FDIC behave in a high-inflation environment?
    - threeseed 4y ago
      FDIC was introduced in 1933. And the inflation rate today is nothing compared to previous years [1]. So my guess is just fine. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/2497/historical-inflation-rate-by-year https://www.macrotrends.net/2497/historical-inflation-rate-b...
    - AviationAtom 4y ago
      The government is good for all debts, until it isn't. But at such a point as it isn't then I think FDIC insurance becomes the least of our concerns.
    - sumeno 4y ago
      Much better than crypto has
      - conanbatt 4y ago
        Laughs in Argentinian peso
  - AviationAtom 4y ago
    It doesn't change the fact said bank would have gone under, and people would only be reimbursed up to $250k. It is in everyone's interest for banks to remain healthy.
  - hem777 4y ago
    You may not remember 2008, but banks are absolutely, massively, a systematic risk to everyone, everywhere.

jsemrau 4y ago

Anecdotal evidence: Friends of mine tried to open up a corporate bank account in Singapore for their crypto-business. Doesn't go too well.

zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
Hodlnaut is in Singapore. Makes sense banks there would want to avoid crypto companies after this huge failure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodlnaut https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodlnaut
- jsemrau 4y ago
  3AC as well.
yreg 4y ago
I don't know about Singapore specifically, but it has always been notoriously difficult for crypto businesses to open bank accounts.
strangattractor 4y ago
Probably all those regulations put in place to keep people from disappearing with your money. There are many other friendly countries for these types of businesses like the Bahamas for example.
epolanski 4y ago
Banks don't work with crypto. It's known.
shapefrog 4y ago
Anecdotal evidence: I tried to open up a personal bank account in Singapore for myself. Doesn't go too well. And that was with a bank that I have a private banking relationship in 6 countries already...

greenyoda 4y ago

Archive with full text of article: https://archive.ph/3FWSM https://archive.ph/3FWSM

tnel77 4y ago

[flagged]

vachina 4y ago
I’m not going to pretend Bitcoin is the bane of human existence, I have a hunch that a majority of the people cheering Bitcoin’s (alleged) rise either is a fraudster or a grifter.
- tnel77 4y ago
  I see what you did there. Agree to disagree, I suppose.
alphanullmeric 4y ago
Certain people take issue with financial privacy, and not being able to regulate other people’s wallets.
- timmytokyo 4y ago
  I don't tend to associate privacy with an asset whose transactions are recorded in a public ledger for all to see.
  - alphanullmeric 4y ago
    Do you support forcing KYC laws onto exchanges? Or the cryptocurrency transaction tracking laws in the EU? I’m looking for a yes or no answer.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      Yes. Why should cryptocurrencies allow fraudulent money transfers to North Korea and not banks that can do them more cheaply? Hint: there is no good reason. Regulation will catch up.
      - 4y ago

givemeethekeys 4y ago

If I were a bank, I'd stay far away from any non-bitcoin cryptos that I'm not an issuer of. Why would I want to own a coin that someone else is able to freely devalue, in addition to conventional currencies? On the other hand, if I were a bank, bitcoin presents a compelling argument. The supply is finite. Disclaimer: I don't own any crypto or bitcoin.

dijit 4y ago
>if I were a bank, bitcoin presents a compelling argument. The supply is finite. Do you think that the most important thing about the value of something is the finite supply of it? Fiat currency is theoretically infinite since we abolished the gold standard, but seems to be compelling. Why would bitcoin be more compelling than gold (a finite store of wealth) or fiat currency (a fluctuating/volatile/infinite store of wealth)
- gfodor 4y ago
  You can own both gold and Bitcoin. At a minimum unless you think those who think bitcoin is ultimately worthless are right, it’s a way to diversify a gold-like asset class along the axis they are similar.
  - epolanski 4y ago
    Let's compare a highly valuable and needed metal with 6000+ years of history as a solid investment, with...cryptocurrencies and their proven record of having no real life utility but lots of speculation. Makes sense.
    - defrost 4y ago
      > Let's compare a highly valuable and needed metal with 6000+ years of history as a solid investment Hi, I've worked in the global mineral exploration industry for decades, both as a mine worker, an exploration geophysicist, and as a compiler of a global DB that now backends the S&P mineral intelligence division. Let's clear up some things about gold. 1) It's valuable because it's valued .. That's pretty much it, it's kind of rare, its shiny, it "stands alone" as a noble metal that doesn't easily react. 2) Much needed - it's used in jewellry, it's essential in high end long life zero maintaince space electronics ... a great deal of other uses (Gold Speaker Cables!!) are just pure performative BD (ie. it's not "essential") - other metals are in the same ballpark for conductivity, etc. 3) The greatest single application for gold, once mined at great expense, is to be formed into ingots and sit about as bullion as "proof" of work (digging a super pit and spending > billion to recover it per annum) and proof of wealth. It's more or less solid crypto that persists after the power goes out, can be worn as shiny jewellery, and has some neat niche applications that it is essential for. I'm not a huge cyrpto fan, although I did hang on the cypher punk boards where the bitcoin paper was first announced (as I have a math background) - I'm no fan of the vast amount of energy wasted (IMHO) on both gold extraction and bitcoin mining.

wruza 4y ago

A worrisome title. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230109005186/en/ https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230109005186/en/ The Company expects minimal financial impact from the exit of this vertical. MCB currently has four active institutional crypto-asset related clients that in the aggregate currently account for approximately 1.5% of total revenues and 6% of total deposits. MCB’s relationships with these clients are limited to providing debit card, payment and account services. The Company has no loans outstanding to any of these clients, does not hold crypto-assets on its balance sheet and does not market or sell crypto-assets to its customers. Mark R. DeFazio, President and CEO of MCB. “Crypto-related clients, assets and deposits have never represented a material portion of the Company’s business and have never exposed the Company to material financial risks. Seems like this experiment never brought anything but account maintenance fees and they simply revised regulatory risks after FTX noise. A “deep liquidity” which was left unused for years. But “Banks Are Fleeing” makes a better headline indeed.

rurp 4y ago
A few years ago crypto often had large jumps from deals like these, not so much because of the immediate affect but more because it implied much larger growth was on the horizon. That seemed reasonable at the time, and the reverse seems reasonable now. If large financial institutions don't want to touch crypto, that severly limits the foreseeable upside for the industry.
- aaronwalker 4y ago
  Interest in crypto comes in cycles, and with each new cycle there are more incumbents that want to get involved. This bear market may have been particularly worrying for the industry, but I'm confident that in 5-10 years from now large financial institutions will again want to incorporate crypto. The networks behind these currencies are too resilient and the upside is too high to avoid.
  - elevaet 4y ago
    Why 5-10 years? Hype cycle, or do you think there will be changes in the tech that could make it useful to these institutions at that point?

galaxyLogic 4y ago

Cryptonomics?

monero-xmr 4y ago

3 years ago ETH was $100, today it's $1300, maybe we should all just wait and see before writing the obituary

mumblemumble 4y ago
Calling this an obituary is rather hyperbolic. It is, though, yet another indication that crypto is losing momentum among mainstream consumers. Perhaps that's simply collateral damage from a downturn that's affecting all segments of the economy. But, then again, perhaps not. It strikes me as a distinct, qualitatively important development that's worth observing carefully rather than dismissing out of hand.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  I mean, META stock has been a worse investment year over year than bitcoin. I know everything is relative, but the "momentum losing" I think is fueled by people who vehemently dislike this technology more than what the market is determining
  - mumblemumble 4y ago
    You can't draw a distinction between people who dislike an asset and "the market" like that. The market includes everyone, not just a select group of people who hold a specific set of opinions. Also, this focus on the USD exchange rates of specific cryptocurrencies is akin to moving the goalpost right out of the stadium and into, like, a tennis court or something. The shift this article is talking about is not about prices, it's about mainstream institutional support for the asset class. That's not driven by exchange rates, per se, because they're not speculating on it, they're simply enabling their clients to do so. It's more driven by things like whether they believe there's a stable consumer market that can be relied upon to cover their cost of operating in the space and provide some profit as well.
xupybd 4y ago
And that is why I don't go near any crypto. Don't get me wrong I love the idea but I don't like volatility. I can't wait until a stable DeFi is established. for international transactions this will be a dream. If it's up over 10 fold in 3 years then I don't see why it couldn't drop 3 fold in the next 3. I like simple investments where the value is obvious and a simpleton like me can guess if the price matches the underlying value.

matt3210 4y ago

need quotes around "investors"

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

gerdesj 4y ago

I minted nearly 1 BTC rather a lot of years ago and it vanished with a Pentium II to III upgrade (or similar). Oh well! I probably ran up £5 of 'leccy back then minting it. I probably spent more on Folding@Home and the like. For me the ledgers/blockchains and provability things are important but trying to fennangle a "value" out of thin air is a step too far. Even if that step involves a Norway MW Year. Eventually something useful might come out of all of this but I don't think it will be a currency you can spend. In the meantime, the world burns or at least gets a bit more toasty.

Canada 4y ago
> I minted nearly 1 BTC rather a lot of years ago and it vanished with a Pentium II to III upgrade (or similar). How did you do that?
- gerdesj 4y ago
  I idly played with BTC one evening and I let it mine for about a week or so on a fairly poky PC and got bored of it eventually. I was more interested in Folding@Home. As it turns out I was both right and wrong. That BTC was going to be worth up to $64,000 at one point in time. However, protein folding might save lives. I ditched that PC and didn't copy over the wallet because I'd forgotten about it - it wasn't that important. I am very aware now that it would probably be a good idea to back up things like that 8)
  - 93po 4y ago
    I always console people by telling them there's no way you'd have held on to that BTC all the way to $64k. You'd probably sell it for a few hundred
    - DSingularity 4y ago
      And if not — definitely when it hit a thousand.
  - fyloraspit 4y ago

rufusroflpunch 4y ago

I don’t think this one example they provided is indicative. Didn’t the BIS just give their okay for banks to hold 2% of reserves in Bitcoin? Also, didn’t FASB just change their accounting rules to make businesses holding crypto easier on the balance sheet? Presumably demand is going in the opposite direction that this blurb would indicate.

markhuggins 4y ago
A quick read seems to me to state that no, the Basel crowd did not give banks an OK to hold 2% in Bitcoin. On the contrary they've added a new rule that states it needs to be <1% (and even then should be risk weighted at 1250%). BIS (https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d545.pdf https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d545.pdf) This states that banks should in the normal course of business hold less than 1% and must report anything higher, 2% is when an additional 'penalty' applies.
joedavison 4y ago
The story about BIS authorizing banks to hold 2% of reserves in Bitcoin was dramatically misreported. This was actually placing a limit on their holdings, to 2%, which is down from no limit previously.

daedalus2027 4y ago

My fear is that eventually people will star loosing holding over cryptos and banks will star to buy them very cheap, so they will control the supply and not people. once again banks having the full grip.

nemo44x 4y ago
Yea, that’s the idea. Someone is buying when there’s blood in the streets and it’s not usually the idiots.

stephc_int13 4y ago

I have the feeling that this crypto winter is different than the previous ones. I think that we're finally reaching a critical mass of people understanding the nature of the proposition.

DonHopkins 4y ago
It's just like the Scientology Winter. Nobody could stop Scientology until South Park did a series of episodes about them. And South Park recently did a number on NFTs and crypto currencies a year ago: Crypto Curious - SOUTH PARK: POST COVID: THE RETURN OF COVID https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8f-BQFo7lw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8f-BQFo7lw >Vic Chaos presents a proposal on the potential of selling NFTs to Denny's Applebee's Max customers.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Did that actually stop Scientology? Last I checked, they still have that crazy pinky-swear-it's-not-a-gulag compound, the Sea Org is still around, recruiting via "free stress tests" is still a thing...
Sargos 4y ago
> I think that we're finally reaching a critical mass of people understanding the nature of the proposition. Most people have only heard of Bitcoin and think crypto is about sending digital gold coins to people. That hasn't been relevant in years and the crypto industry moved on from Bitcoin half a decade ago and pretty much all of the development and activity happens on Ethereum. Most people have never heard of Ethereum and only a small portion of those that have understand what it is. I don't think we're anywhere near a peak
- yao420 4y ago
  > Most people have never heard of Ethereum Paris Hilton and jimmy fallon were shilling bored apes on late night tv. Kim kardashian and Floyd Maywether promoted crypto scams. Tom Brady was a big FTX promoter and investor. There were like 4 formula one teams named after shitcoins. Those names are some of the most famous in the world across a number of demographics. Mass media already pushed the crypto scams on the world. There is no one left to push the ponzi onto.

Octokiddie 4y ago

> The problem, in a nutshell, is that for Bitcoin and other digital assets to have any chance of becoming mainstream, banks—with their access to deep sources of liquidity and experience in facilitating payments—will have to be on board. For the time being, they’re running in the opposite direction. What does Bitcoin "becoming mainstream" look like specifically? The article doesn't offer anything - not even a link. Let's say it's 1974 and you're writing an article about the desktop computer "becoming mainstream". What does that look like exactly to you? I'm guessing it doesn't look anything like the last 30 years. Not even close. So how can the author be so confident in asserting that banks must be "on board" for this mainstreaming to happen? The desktop computer was an attack from below, in the Christenson Innovator's Dilemma sense. It looked and acted exactly like a toy for the first decade of its existence. Most incumbents who saw through that surface illusion were powerless to do anything about it. The one that did (IBM) tried, briefly succeeded, then lost the entire thing. Banks with their highly touted "experience in facilitating payments" are the very thing Bitcoin has in the crosshairs. Banks losing interest now that the Bitcoin FOMO is gone? Good riddance to them and their AML/KYC bootlicking.

Animats 4y ago
> Let's say it's 1974 and you're writing an article about the desktop computer "becoming mainstream". What does that look like exactly to you? I'm guessing it doesn't look anything like the last 30 years. Not even close. Sure it does. Read Alan Kay's "Personal Dynamic Media". His vision of the ultimate personal computer was what today we'd consider a very bulky laptop.
- britneybitch 4y ago
  Alan Kay was one of the few people in 1974 qualified to make predictions about computers. I'd compare that to Andreas Antonopoulos making predictions about bitcoin in 2011. I wouldn't trust your average journalist's predictions in either situation.
- meowkit 4y ago
  Link for the curious. http://augmentingcognition.com/assets/Kay1977.pdf http://augmentingcognition.com/assets/Kay1977.pdf It's a neat read, from 1977 to be pedantic. It does miss networking - the DynaBook misses the forest for the trees in that it is a personal computer that doesn't account for the advent of the internet and how PCs/smartphones are a communication tool right after being a fancy calculator at their core. In a sense that's an apt description for how a lot of people view crypto - they see it as purely a currency network, but don't realize its much more than that.

Sparkyte 4y ago

There is no reason to be invested in crypto. It is no more valuable than a trading card and the volatile nature of trading cards are equal part. Noone also needs to invest in something that has an unsure future. While people would argue that it is like investing in stocks that crypto is the new Apple stocks of 80s. It simply isn't that stocks come with volatility but you own a share of the company as in you own that percentage.

surfingdino 4y ago
Yet banks do not close accounts of people selling, buying, designing, or printing trading cards, do they?
- jostiniane 4y ago
  > it's nothing to worry about > if we will ever catch you using that you will be punished
- Sparkyte 4y ago
  Actually they can! If a large amount of money transfers because of selling/buying anything it can cause freeze on an account. But the individual value of a card is not likely to cause the trigger. Just like... ... crypto. But cash you can pretty much hide it even if you have finger quotes to finger quotes.

chamwislothe2nd 4y ago

I'd like to see a chart of negative HN posts vs bitcoin price. I have a feeling you could make a lot of money.

windex 4y ago

So many HODLers in this thread. For the normal person on the street, Bitcoin or Crypto never mattered. The endlessly breathless PR was irritating. Whatever happens, this wont be missed.

renewiltord 4y ago
I disagree. Crypto was the sort of thing you might hear about from a cabbie or at the barber shop. It was definitely something for the normal person on the street. In fact, that was used as a common sell signal with people quoting the "When your shoeshine boy gives you stock tips" stuff.
- ozim 4y ago
  I just wanted to add perspective that for these cabbies and normal people it was gambling. It was not “get free from the government” it was not about convenience of digital payments or whatever crypto promise was there. For normal people it was get rich quick scheme and that is why advertising was so annoying. I agree with parent comment - in the end it never really mattered for normal people.
  - joyfylbanana 4y ago
    Though for many normal people it was also about buying drugs online which could be seen as "get free from the government" kind of thing
    - trenchgun 4y ago
      There are orders of magnitude more crypto gamblers than people buying drugs online.
    - pif 4y ago
      If you buy drugs for which you need to hide from your democratic government, then you are not normal people: you are a criminal. Good riddance!

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

throwawayxy1 4y ago

India's 6 year old UPI does 7B transcations per month. Its used by all classes. Crypto is pathetic in comparison

nlitened 4y ago
How many transactions per months does UPI support for people who are banned from the system or whose assets are frozen?
- throwawayxy1 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - nlitened 4y ago
    In 2022, 140 million people in Russia became criminals without trial, and got cut off from Visa, Mastercard and SWIFT within days. I’d suggest normal people to worry about those things at least a little bit if they have families who depend on them, you don’t want to have all their savings locked up at once.
    - tallanvor 4y ago
      And if a substantial amount of business was conducted using bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies, I have no doubt the rest of the world would have figured out a way to cut Russians off from them as well. That's one of the prices you pay when your government decides to invade one of their neighbors and tries to commit genocide.
      - nlitened 4y ago
        I agree.

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago

For those who do not use archive.ph, here is the crux of the article: https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2023/bulletin-2023-1.html https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2023/bull... Banks are being warned against crypto. The article also claims bitcoin cannot survive without banks. Unfortunately, archive.ph requires the use of a "preferred browser" and the need to send data to Google. First, to get past the CAPTCHA, one has to access www.google.com, so Google now has data that the user is visiting archive.ph. https://www.google.com/recaptcha/api.js?onload=onloadCallback&render=explicit https://www.google.com/recaptcha/api.js?onload=onloadCallbac... https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/ping?sitemap=https://archive.ph/sitemap.xml https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/ping?sitemap=https:/... Once past the CAPTCHA, more fun. https://a.publir.com/platform/1100.js https://a.publir.com/platform/1100.js Publir looks like adtech. For example, https://a.publir.com/sellers.json https://a.publir.com/sellers.json https://a.publir.com/ads-txt/505/ads.txt https://a.publir.com/ads-txt/505/ads.txt The next one looks like some data collection by archive.ph https://[YOUR_IP_ADDRESS].[YOUR_COUNTRY].inc1.358424231.pixel.archive.ph/x.gif https://[YOUR_IP_ADDRESS].[YOUR_COUNTRY].inc1.358424231.pixe... Archive.ph itself is blocked in some countries. Maybe it wants to know where users are coming from. Archive.ph does not work with Clouflare DNS because CF refused to send archive.ph a portion of the user's IP address in a DNS packet, i.e., EDNS0 Client Subnet. Instead archive.ph will now use "x.gif" to cause a DNS request that reveals the full IP address of the user. Next, add in some tracking. https://top-fwz1.mail.ru/js/code.js https://top-fwz1.mail.ru/js/code.js Last but not least, everyone wants to let Google know what they are reading at archive.ph. Here, Barrons. https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=www.barrons.com https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=www.barrons.com https://t1.gstatic.com/faviconV2?client=NULL&type=FAVICON&fallback_opts=TYPE,SIZE,URL&url=http://www.barrons.com&size=16 https://t1.gstatic.com/faviconV2?client=NULL&type=FAVICON&fa...

jbverschoor 4y ago

Reducing in converted value actual crypto? I think almost everybody who kept reduced their exposure bc the price dropped

Jaydoon564 4y ago

[dead]

birracerveza 4y ago

Hilarious thread. Whichever way it's going to go, it will be fun to come to back to read it in 5 to 10 years.

surfingdino 4y ago

What is problematic with the banks' approach to crypto is that by closing accounts of companies or persons having something to do with crypto they are making it impossible to pay taxes. This is putting people and businesses in serious jeopardy of being prosecuted on the grounds of tax avoidance. I would love to know if such behaviour falls under anti-trust laws or may even be unconstitutional. Refusal of provision of services that may result in prosecution looks illegal to me, but I'd like to hear a lawyer's opinion.

Broken_Hippo 4y ago
That isn't the bank's problem, nor is it new. In the US, you are supposed to pay taxes on any profit, even if you don't get actual cash on it. Prizes from The Price is Right? You gotta have the cash for taxes. If illegal gains aren't exempt, I don't see a reason to exempt crypto. If you can't afford the tax, don't buy. (FWIW, they don't give you the price is right prizes unless you have cash upfront. Not getting the prize is you being poor or being tricked. I view crypto similarly.)

joemazerino 4y ago

Bitcoin doesn't need banks. That's the whole point.

hef19898 4y ago
Bitcoin doesn't, bitcoin investors do. And until you can pay your Snickers at a grocery store with bitcoin, that won't change.
- jostiniane 4y ago
  There's a huge fight to kill crypto adoption and this article is an example.. You won't be able to buy snickers everywhere in BTC, but we are slowly getting there.. The number of things I can buy with crypto is increasing significantly (now I pay for VPN, web hosting, domain nane, consulting, ... in crypto). In addition, probably firsties are not aware, but P2P networks without KYC are exploding everywhere. I can get cash for crypto in under one hour where I am. You can today go to a number of touristy countries and live of exchanging BTC for cash securely and with 0 identification. If this is not big enough then I don't know whay would be.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Humanity isn’t ready because we can’t build perfect code yet. Once crypto isn’t incentivizing nation state actors from working on $50M bug bounties, maybe we will be ready…

oblio 4y ago
> Humanity isn’t ready because we can’t build perfect code yet. Let me rephrase that: [Nobody] is ready because we can't build perfect [anything], [ever].

b3nji 4y ago

But what about Bitcoin?